GKBest
10-13 09:41 PM
All 3 - checks cashed on Oct 11. I got the reciept no.s on the back of the checks. When can I expect to recieve the notices? I am planning travel by the end of this month. Is that OK to travel with just the reciept no's or do I need to have the reciept notices with me. Also I have a valid H1 visa till 2009. Advice greatly appreciated.
Are you a July 2nd filer?
Are you a July 2nd filer?
wallpaper I love children#39;s coloring
wandmaker
11-27 03:41 PM
bablata2007: What is the status of your 140?
smiling08
09-19 08:52 AM
HI All,
I am curious how long does the I-824 gonna take, because I may need to change the consulate in Canada to activate my H1-B visa. But I dare that there is not enough time. Thanks a lot!
Fan
I am curious how long does the I-824 gonna take, because I may need to change the consulate in Canada to activate my H1-B visa. But I dare that there is not enough time. Thanks a lot!
Fan
2011 disney cars coloring pages
kmdhar
10-12 04:09 PM
Here is my recent experience. I have only 2yrs out of 6yrs of H1B.Recently i applied for extension(applied for 3yrs instead of 2yrs based on approved 140) and received RFE from USCIS and asked for approved copy of 140. We send it and got the approval.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
dealsnet
04-14 09:25 AM
It is very clear. Child can charge to either parents chargeability. Parents cannot charge to child's country of birth.
Lawyers are not always correct. Check the law by ourselves. Only government can change the law. Not by any lawyers.
it seems clear - a child can claim either parents country chargeability. A spouse can claim a favorable country chargeability. I dont think it says that a parent can claim chargeability of childs birth country.
Lawyers are not always correct. Check the law by ourselves. Only government can change the law. Not by any lawyers.
it seems clear - a child can claim either parents country chargeability. A spouse can claim a favorable country chargeability. I dont think it says that a parent can claim chargeability of childs birth country.
chi_shark
09-04 12:12 PM
Tell your friend that it will be more fun to watch grass grow than filing for gc...
just kidding... if he just needs I-140 approved so he can continue to get 3 year H-1 extensions, then its a good idea to start PERM.
One of my good friend asked me this questions yesterday? I did not have an answer for him and wanted to ask if someone could have any suggestions on this.
Thanks you for your time.
His company wants to start his EB2 green card process. He was wondering if this a good time to do this? Is it recommended that he delay this process for 6 months or so? He is currently in his 3rd year of H1B.
Thanks
-M
just kidding... if he just needs I-140 approved so he can continue to get 3 year H-1 extensions, then its a good idea to start PERM.
One of my good friend asked me this questions yesterday? I did not have an answer for him and wanted to ask if someone could have any suggestions on this.
Thanks you for your time.
His company wants to start his EB2 green card process. He was wondering if this a good time to do this? Is it recommended that he delay this process for 6 months or so? He is currently in his 3rd year of H1B.
Thanks
-M
more...
indyanguy
08-03 12:05 PM
I've been waiting for 400+ days for my NSC-EB3-140 to get processed. Really frustrating!! :mad:
2010 clip up colouring sheets
MeraNaamJoker
09-15 01:30 PM
First thank GOD for pulling you out of this mess.
Instead of blowing the money in strip bar or any place like that, send it to India and ask them feed any orphans. You will be blessed more......
Instead of blowing the money in strip bar or any place like that, send it to India and ask them feed any orphans. You will be blessed more......
more...
rongha_2000
07-11 06:08 PM
This is a very interesting thread. People PLEASE USE THIS LINK and lets all email / send a letter to Mr. President and Mr. Vice President.
IV Core Team, please draft a template so that everyone could use.
Thanks Mihird for finding this link. Great Job!!!
Here is what I sent
***************
So much for illegals and nothing for legals who played by the rules? Is there a hope for us legal immigrants anywhere in sight?
I request you to please look into the case and feel the pain and frustration we go through every day.
Attached is the link
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9979506&content_dir=ua_congressorg
*************************
IV Core Team, please draft a template so that everyone could use.
Thanks Mihird for finding this link. Great Job!!!
Here is what I sent
***************
So much for illegals and nothing for legals who played by the rules? Is there a hope for us legal immigrants anywhere in sight?
I request you to please look into the case and feel the pain and frustration we go through every day.
Attached is the link
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9979506&content_dir=ua_congressorg
*************************
hair pages - Disney Pixar Cars
bond65
08-28 11:25 AM
kaisersose, is it mandatory for the beneficiary to sign the approved labor before attaching it to the I140 application ?
According to the legal assistant:
Traditional Labor:
Incase of substitution the beneficiary has to sign the approved labor. Otherwise it is not required.
PERM: Requires beneficiary's signature.
According to the legal assistant:
Traditional Labor:
Incase of substitution the beneficiary has to sign the approved labor. Otherwise it is not required.
PERM: Requires beneficiary's signature.
more...
posmd
11-12 11:51 AM
I have looked at your link and to be sure this is an inspiring human being. As are pretty much all of the nominated CNN heros. That said, I want to make a point that I think should make people take pause.
This is firstly an immigration website. It is certainly not a ethnocentric website. IV leadership have gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to emphasize this. Yet people keep posting such requests to give the impression to all that it is Indocentric. It harms the cause.
Finally, if you are asking people to vote because he is the most deserving as CNN hero that would be one thing. If on the other hand as all the evidence suggests you are asking folks to vote because he is Indian, then I am afraid it speaks more to prejudice than anything else.
I am saying this because I hope it makes everyone think about it.
This is firstly an immigration website. It is certainly not a ethnocentric website. IV leadership have gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to emphasize this. Yet people keep posting such requests to give the impression to all that it is Indocentric. It harms the cause.
Finally, if you are asking people to vote because he is the most deserving as CNN hero that would be one thing. If on the other hand as all the evidence suggests you are asking folks to vote because he is Indian, then I am afraid it speaks more to prejudice than anything else.
I am saying this because I hope it makes everyone think about it.
hot pixar up coloring pages.
satishku_2000
05-03 03:41 PM
I agree with you that it is a random process but the processing date that is shown indicates that all the cases prior to that date have been "served". So, TSC-Oct 14 means, cases received on Oct 14 and later are currently being served. Hope this helps.
Does this mean USCIS has touched all the application before the date ?
Does this mean USCIS has touched all the application before the date ?
more...
house makeup hot Meet Disney Pixar
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
tattoo pixar cars coloring pages. hot
gumpena
08-03 10:21 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes080307.pdf
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
more...
pictures Disney Pixar Cars Coloring
keepwalking
05-22 09:58 PM
Can you please prefix "Tracker:" to the thread's title.
Thank You.
Greetings,
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
Thank You.
Greetings,
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
dresses disney pixar cars coloring
nixstor
08-23 11:56 AM
I wish it was like that, but it amazes me how many times I have to give the exact same information to all government agencies. They have no clue or contact between each other unfortunately.
For example, why do I have to give all my information on all forms, even within USCIS? And why do I have redo my fingerprints every year? My fingers don't change.
And why can people get a new drivers license or hide in another state from where the drivers license was issued?
The only thing that should be needed to apply for a i485 should be your social #. The rest of the information they should already KNOW... Why should you give it? Then they will have to check that you gave the right information on the paper, not focusing on if the information is correct... It is just opening up for fraud.
So until they get their information straight, don't underestimate how much data you have to give them over and over again... and how slow the process will be because of that.
Swede,
While I agree with most of your comments (Ex: DL process is a mess), it does not work like that. We are talking about inter agency communication. To quote an example of how USCIS systems themselves are designed I asked " How come USCIS do not know how many people will be eligible for filing 485 ? All that they have to do is get a number of approved and pending 140's and come with a PD date that will effectively use visa numbers" short answer is there are different systems in USCIS to which some officers have access to and some officers don't.
Essentially, the data is already out there but the data is in different data islands and they are not connected. While it would be good to connect all these islands, there can be issues with overwhelming information or making info available with out knowing whats needed. There needs to be an access control based approach or even biometrics. Every access should be substantiated with a reason. In the current situation it might be easy for agencies to ask the applicant for proof rather than trying to go through other agency's bureaucracy. I could be wrong.
I love the idea of giving SSN, GC application and have it processed.
Thanks for updating your profile and will see you in DC
For example, why do I have to give all my information on all forms, even within USCIS? And why do I have redo my fingerprints every year? My fingers don't change.
And why can people get a new drivers license or hide in another state from where the drivers license was issued?
The only thing that should be needed to apply for a i485 should be your social #. The rest of the information they should already KNOW... Why should you give it? Then they will have to check that you gave the right information on the paper, not focusing on if the information is correct... It is just opening up for fraud.
So until they get their information straight, don't underestimate how much data you have to give them over and over again... and how slow the process will be because of that.
Swede,
While I agree with most of your comments (Ex: DL process is a mess), it does not work like that. We are talking about inter agency communication. To quote an example of how USCIS systems themselves are designed I asked " How come USCIS do not know how many people will be eligible for filing 485 ? All that they have to do is get a number of approved and pending 140's and come with a PD date that will effectively use visa numbers" short answer is there are different systems in USCIS to which some officers have access to and some officers don't.
Essentially, the data is already out there but the data is in different data islands and they are not connected. While it would be good to connect all these islands, there can be issues with overwhelming information or making info available with out knowing whats needed. There needs to be an access control based approach or even biometrics. Every access should be substantiated with a reason. In the current situation it might be easy for agencies to ask the applicant for proof rather than trying to go through other agency's bureaucracy. I could be wrong.
I love the idea of giving SSN, GC application and have it processed.
Thanks for updating your profile and will see you in DC
more...
makeup disney pixar cars coloring
rockstart
05-04 09:25 AM
I changed my address using online AR11 on friday May 1st. I checked my case portfolio next day and saw a soft LUD on my I 485 application. Same with my wife. I think it is always better to get the address change done in the system because later it can be a big headache to solve. I will update forum if I hear anything from CIS.
girlfriend tattoo hot house disney pixar
amslonewolf
11-19 02:46 PM
http://cli.gs/De4Z4u
BTW, what's scary about this memo..
Infact, I find it encouraging, that TSC is trying to facilitate the process one way or other, given their system deficiency.
BTW, what's scary about this memo..
Infact, I find it encouraging, that TSC is trying to facilitate the process one way or other, given their system deficiency.
hairstyles Crayola Disney Pixar Cars
bkarnik
10-26 03:33 PM
My experience, this is at the Mumbai consulate in 2004. At that time they had the drop box in place. I mailed my documents and they returned everything back with my H1 stamped.
My wife went for her H4 stamping (second stage) in 2005. They asked for all the original documents i.e my I-797 and her I-797 but returned both of the documents back at the end of the interview. I think she had copies with her and they kept those.
Best bet is to contact VFS and inquire.
My wife went for her H4 stamping (second stage) in 2005. They asked for all the original documents i.e my I-797 and her I-797 but returned both of the documents back at the end of the interview. I think she had copies with her and they kept those.
Best bet is to contact VFS and inquire.
hianupam
04-16 01:49 PM
wht field u and ur wife work on??
Both of us work in the energy (electricity) industry.
Both of us work in the energy (electricity) industry.
sanagani
03-08 02:54 PM
Appreciate your answer,,thank you
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario